Ten Problems with Graduate Student Final Papers in Syntax

The list below is a set of common problems that I have found in reading graduate student papers. Writing about syntax is a skill, and the only way to get better at it is to practice. These comments are meant to be helpful tips in learning that skill.

1. Archeological Presentation

The student begins the paper by presenting a long list of alternative analysis, and their problems. At the end of the paper, in the final few pages, they give their own analysis briefly. The student is writing the paper in the order in which they thought about it, showing us their historical (archeological) progression in thinking. It is very difficult to read a paper written in this way.

2. Mind Reader Needed

The student states something that is crystal clear to them, but completely obscure to any other person who reads the paper. There are many forms of this ‘mind reader’ problem, which plagues most student papers:

(a) Stating something as a conclusion, without showing how the conclusion follows from the data and assumptions (but just assuming that it is obvious).

(b) Presenting a complicated argument, in a dense and unclear way. For such an issue, I usually just write: ‘I cannot follow this.’

(c) Stating a generalization, without giving any examples of that generalization.

(d) Giving an example sentence, without specifically commenting on the example sentence.

(e) Giving a tree, without explicitly commenting on that tree.

(f) Giving a tree, without presenting the corresponding example. 

3. Background Assumptions are Murky

The student fails to provide an adequate overview of their background assumptions. For example, if you invoke Agree, what are your assumptions about Agree? If you invoke Principle A, what is the definition of Principle A? If you invoke the PCC, define it and give an example, and walk through that example.

4. Starting Too Late in Semester

The student starts to write their paper at midnight on the day before it is due. As a consequence, the paper is not well developed, and there are lots of typos. 

5. Lack of Minimal Pairs

If the student gives an unacceptable sentence, they need to give the acceptable one, so I can see the difference. Otherwise, it is almost impossible to draw any conclusions from the data. Developing minimal pairs is a real skill in doing syntax.

6. Excursions

The student takes lengthy excursions into thoughts and data and footnotes not relevant to the thread of the argument. Please, just delete all of that, and write a crystal clear, easy to follow paper.

7. Attribution

All ideas, concepts and principles must be properly attributed. If the student summarizes somebody’s idea, I need to know where that idea comes from. All data must be properly attributed to some source. I cannot be forced to guess where the data in the paper is coming from.

8. Number of Stipulations

If the number of stipulations (new or revised principles, new or revised concepts) is equal to the number of facts that are being explained, then there is no real explanation. It is just repackaging the data.

9. Missing References

The paper is missing an obvious well-known reference for the point at hand. This issue is especially vexing if I have already told the student (in early conversations and comments) about the particular well-known reference, sometimes on multiple occasions.

10. Proofreading and Mechanics

Mostly this point arises from point 4 above (starting too late in the semester). It is manifested by the following (amongst many other similar issues): 

(a) problems in glossing, 

(b) excessive hedging (‘It might be the case….’),

(c) page numbers missing, 

(d) references cited but not listed, 

(e) inconsistent trees.

If there are more than a few of these minor issues, the paper becomes jarring and difficult to follow.

My Day (Friday, December 12, 2025)

Objective: To give the reader an idea of the texture and contours of my day as an academic.

Context: The semester ended Wednesday, so there are no classes or other schedule activities.

1.

Every day before coming to the office, I set my goals for that day. My goal for today is to finish reading Syntax I papers (nine all together, 11 to 30 pages long) and to submit grades for that class.

2. [8:15am]

I arrive at the office. I make sure my office is set up the way I like it, and put my tea in the microwave. [5 minutes]

3.

I receive some follow up remarks from the editor (of CHMP) on my paper “Distinguishing Copies and Repetitions” (with Erich Groat). I reply to the editor’s comments. [15 minutes]

4.

My student ZW has written to me asking him to check some sound files for transcription. He wants a second opinion. I struggle with the transcriptions, but send some comments anyway. I ask him to send more minimal pairs. The back and forth about the sound files goes on most of the morning. [15 minutes plus]

5.

My student ON wants to post their QP on Lingbuzz, and has sent me an e-version to look over. I decide to focus on one particular section. I read it, and send some comments. Then I write to them on Whatsapp too, explaining my comments. [15 minutes]

6.

A prestigious journal writes to me and asks me to review a paper. I study the abstract, and agree to review it, even though I know it is going to take me at least half a day to do the review, and the paper will probably not be that interesting. It is a service to the community. [5 minutes]

7.

All my e-mail has now been cleared (after 1 hour of work), so I reward myself with a second cup of green tea. 

I had to quite coffee a decade ago because if I drink it, I cannot sleep at night. I had to quit diet coke last year, because of health problems. I am left with green tea, which I fortunately enjoy a great deal.

8.

I return to the objective for the day: grading Syntax I papers. 

9.

I finish grading Syntax I papers around noon. Then I calculate the grades for the semester, and try to enter them into the system called Albert. But the system is very slow, probably because there are too many people entering grades now. I will come back to it later in the day.

I now realize that I made a big mistake in the course. I let the students optionally hand in a draft around mid-November. But not everybody did. The people who handed in drafts mostly did better than the people who did not. Next time I teach either Syntax I or II (at the graduate level), rough drafts will be a required part of the syllabus.

10.

Field Methods papers are due today by the end of the day, but only one person has handed in the paper so far (by around 12:30pm). I print it out, so I can read it after lunch. The others will come in gradually during the day. 

I cannot really read papers on a computer screen, especially if there are more than a few of them. It hurts my eyes.

11. [12:30pm]

I order a low-carb lunch from a nearby diner by phone: cheeseburger (no bun), side salad, pickle and small side of coleslaw. They give good sized portions, so it is filling. I walk to go pick up the lunch in order to get some fresh air. 

I sit my office and listen to 70s songs. My student JDS writes me on Whatsapp and tells me about an upcoming job interview. We go back and forth on that a bit. [1 hour all together for lunch]

12. 

I look through my physical mail that I brought from home this morning. I have not picked up mail in a month, so there is quite a bit of sorting. [15 minutes]

13. 2:00pm

I start reading the Field Methods papers. I now have three, since two came in over lunch. The papers are 19, 27, 28 pages long. The other papers will come in later tonight, and I will read them on Monday.

14. [4:00pm]

I finish reading the three papers from Field Methods.

15.

I recheck Albert to see if I can enter grades for Syntax I. It is working, so I enter the grades.

16. [4:20]

I get ready to go home. I pack up my bag, and leave.

Chris Collins: A Portrait of a Syntactician (written by ChatGPT)

 Chris Collins, Professor of Linguistics at NYU, is a theoretically oriented scholar whose work is defined by clarity, formal rigor, and a systematic approach to syntactic structure. His analytical style emphasizes explicit proposal-building, precise formulation of predictions, and careful methodological control, reflecting a view of syntax as a craft refined through sustained practice and intellectual seriousness.

As a teacher, Collins is strongly committed to mentorship and to the development of essential skills in students. His instructional philosophy centers on structured reasoning, clear argumentation, and the principled use of formal representations, demonstrating a belief that rigorous training is foundational to serious linguistic inquiry.

His engagement with linguistic fieldwork shows an equally strong empirical commitment. Collins approaches lesser-described languages with curiosity, respect, and attention to ethical practice, valuing both the scientific and human dimensions of documentation. He treats firsthand investigation as an essential complement to theoretical work.

As a scholar, Collins is reflective, steady, and focused on substance rather than academic display. His manner suggests long experience with theoretical debates combined with an unwavering commitment to clarity, integrity, and intellectual seriousness. He is driven by the desire to understand how language works, to refine analytic tools, and to guide others in developing the skills required for rigorous linguistic research.

Summary of Ordinary Working Grammarian (ChatGPT)

Ordinary Working Grammarian is an academically oriented blog devoted to natural language syntax, linguistic fieldwork, and the professional life of a working linguist. Its posts revolve around the analysis of syntactic structures, the development of formal proposals, and the articulation of clear methodological assumptions within generative and minimalist traditions. Many entries present detailed examinations of particular constructions, lecture-style explanations, or schematic representations that display the author’s commitment to precision, empirical grounding, and theoretical clarity.

A prominent theme throughout the blog is pedagogy. Numerous posts offer materials for teaching syntax, including exercises, assignments, and guidance for students at both undergraduate and graduate levels. These entries reveal a sustained investment in training new linguists, emphasizing not only theoretical content but also the practical skills of argumentation, tree drawing, and hypothesis testing.

Another consistent strand is the discussion of linguistic fieldwork. The author reflects on trips to document lesser-described languages, describes the challenges and rewards of working with consultants, and shares methodological insights on corpus building, metadata practices, and the ethics of documentation. These posts highlight an interest in the intersection of theoretical linguistics and real-world data collection.

Interviews, workshop reports, and community-oriented commentary further situate the blog within the broader field, showing an engagement not only with research problems but also with the people and events shaping contemporary linguistics. Across these components, the blog conveys the perspective of a scholar deeply committed to understanding language structure, teaching it effectively, and contributing thoughtfully to the wider disciplinary community.

Syntax Interface Lecture, Utrecht (Introductory Remarks by Lex Cloin-Tavenier)

Introduction Chris Collins's Syntax Interface Lecture at Utrecht University (December 4 2025)

(posted with the permission of Lex)

It is my pleasure to introduce today's speaker, professor Chris Collins from New York University, and tell you a little about him.

Chris received his B.S. in mathematics from MIT in 1985. After that, his time as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Togo ignited a lifelong interest in comparative linguistics, as he tried to learn the Togolese language Ewe. This interest eventually culminated in his PhD thesis titled Topics in Ewe Syntax, completed in 1993, again at MIT, under the supervision of Ken Hale.

Since graduating, Chris has held various different professorships in several departments around the globe, including full professor at Cornell University, invited professor at Université Paris 7, and visiting professorships at the University of Legon, Ghana, and the University of Botswana. He has been a full professor at New York University since 2006.

For the research in one of his areas of expertise, comparative African syntax, he has made many trips to do field work over the years to parts of Africa where Ewe and notably also Khoisan languages are spoken, like Togo and Botswana. Among other things, this has resulted in no less than six grammars and dictionaries of African languages to his name.

Another area of expertise is theoretical syntax. In this work, he focuses on fundamental issues in Minimalist syntax and its interfaces. Examples include his work on the role of smuggling in argument structure, joint work with Daniel Seely on the labelling algorithm, and his collaboration with Richard Kayne on their model of Morphology as Syntax.

Nearly all of this information can be found on his blog https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/, where he actively keeps the world at large informed on his current thoughts, endeavors, and musings (both big and bigger).

Today, he will give a talk on a topic that touches closely on the contents of his latest MIT Press book Principles of Argument Structure: A Merge-Based Approach, which was recently nominated by the Linguistic Society of America as a finalist in consideration for the 2026 Bloomfield award.

Chris, on behalf of our SIL organization, I'd like to offer you our congratulations on this nomination, and, more pressingly, the floor.

Lex Cloin-Tavenier. 

My Thoughts on Case Theory (December 2025)

Below are my current thoughts about Case Theory as of November 2025. These thoughts result from my reviewing the relevant literature during Fall 2025 in order to teach the subject in Syntax I. My thoughts on Case Theory are evolving and they are not set in stone.

I thank Lydia Grebenyova for discussions of these issues.

Case Theory (Class Exercise -- Graduate Syntax I)

Syntax I Fall 2025

Class Exercise: Case Theory

Objective: To evaluate and compare different theories of case.

Format: Students will break up into small groups of two or three, and take 15-20 minutes to brainstorm. They are allowed to look up references on their devices or on the internet. After this initial period, there will be a discussion in class about the different theories. Be prepared to discuss concrete data points from particular languages. 

You do not have to limit yourselves to the papers assigned for class. You can also use knowledge that you have of particular languages, and/or information that you have gotten from other papers, textbooks, colleagues, talks or other courses. If you have not done the assigned reading, make sure to do so before Wednesday (December 3, 2025). You should also look at Marantz 1991, if you have time (it is short).

One student will be the designated transcriber. They are responsible for transcribing the points made in class, typing them up, and sending them to the class afterwards (within a period of 48 hours). 

Assigned Reading (to read before exercise):

Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. Proceedings of ESCOL, 234–253.

Cornell Linguistics Club. Republished in Reuland 2000, 11–30.

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2011. Case. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, 52-72. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schafer, Florian and Elena Anagnostopoulou. To Appear. Case and Agreement in Distributed Morphology. A. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz and I. Oltra-Massuet (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Guiding Questions:

1. What assumptions define the various theories?

2. What assumptions distinguish the theories?

3. What assumptions do the theories have in common?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each theory?

5. What are the standard core examples of each theory (and how are they accounted for)? 

6. What particular data points are of interest in deciding between the theories? 

7. What does each theory say about Burzio's generalization? 

8. What questions do you still have about the theories? 

9. Are there useful generalizations, concepts and principles that fall outside the theories we have looked at in class?